[AP Gets it WRONG] Pope Urges Respect for International Law [did NOT "endorse peace movement"]

Zenit ^ | 3-25-2003 | staff

[Notwithstanding]

John Paul II rejected recourse to war as a means to resolve differences -- with the exception of legitimate defense -- and urged respect for humanitarian law in armed conflicts.

"It is precisely when arms are unleashed, that the need becomes imperative for laws that make military operations less inhuman," the Pope said in a message sent to a course for military chaplains, organized by the Holy See in Rome. The course runs today and Wednesday.

The Holy Father's words came at a crucial moment in the development of events in the Anglo-American military operations in Iraq.

The course of formation in humanitarian law, organized jointly by the Congregation for Bishops and the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, is being attended by 41 chaplains from all over the world.

The course has been in preparation since 1999, in keeping with the commitment assumed that year by the Holy See during the 37th International Conference of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent.

In his message, the Pope said the principles that constitute international humanitarian law today have been able "to develop thanks to the maturation of principles inherent to the Christian message," particularly the appreciation of the dignity of the human person.

These principles teach that "even in the hardest of battles, it is always possible and, therefore, a duty to respect the dignity of the military adversary, the dignity of civilians, and the indelible dignity of each human being involved in armed conflicts."

"In this way, reconciliation necessary for the re-establishment of peace after the conflict is favored," he added, defending humanitarian law not just as "a juridical code, but above all as an ethical code."

After mentioning the "difficult hour of history, when the world finds itself once again hearing the clash of arms," John Paul II said: "thinking of the victims, the destruction, and the suffering caused by armed conflicts always causes great concern and pain."

"It should be clear by now that war used as an instrument of resolution of conflicts between states was rejected, even before the Charter of the United Nations, by the conscience of the majority of humanity, except in the case of defense against an aggressor," the Pope stressed.

"The vast contemporary movement in favor of peace -- which, according to Vatican Council II, is not reduced to a 'simple absence of war' -- demonstrated this conviction of men of every continent and culture," he added.

In this connection, the Holy Father said that "the strength of different religions in sustaining the search for peace is a reason for comfort and hope."

"In our view of faith, peace, even if it is the result of political accords and understanding among individuals and peoples, is a gift from God that we must constantly invoke with prayer and penance," he said. "Without a conversion of heart, there is no peace! Peace is only achieved through love!"

"Right now we are all asked to work and pray so that war disappears from the horizon of humanity," he concluded.

[Iowegian]

The pope is doing what he must, can you imagine what the muslim fanatics would do if the leader of the largest group of Christians wholeheartedly came out in favor of this war?

Thanks for agreeing with me that the Pope is a Muslim appeaser. I couldn't have worded it better myself. He doesn't speak out of principle, but he's afraid of terrorists. Gutsy move there, Pope.

[Notwithstanding]

You must have missed my "universal outlook" posts.
Scroll up to find them.

[Iowegian]

I didn't miss anything. You never answered the question. Just as you always do, you changed the subject.

[Notwithstanding]

Under tyrannical dictatorships, Christians are perscuted (tortured, raped, killed,, etc. ) when the pope speaks out to condemn the tyrants.

Guess you have it all figured out.

[Notwithstanding]

You are either "the pope of Iowa", or you are Iowa's "meanie evangelist".

Which is it?

[Desdemona]

The question is, why is the Pope opposed to this?

Really, if you read the pope's actual words carefully, he is not against this. he only said war should be avoided if at all possible and thatbefore going to war, civil leaders should exhaust all other recourses and consider carefully their responsibilities. I believe, the way this war has been waged, our president and Mr. blair have done just that. Now, nwe must pray for an end to the conflict and that the Iraqi people may have a free, safe and peaceful land in the future.

[Porterville]

All right, I have a religion again.

[Notwithstanding]

Oh but you did miss it - or else you are a dunderhead.

Iowa's Pope Dunderhead.

[Kevin Curry]

I've read his words carefully. They are comforting to Saddam Hussein.

[Desdemona]

This pope is not a hellfire and brimstone kind of guy. You have to read between the lines. He's no friend of Saddam's.

Early morning tomorrow. Good-night.

[Gal.5:1]

"the strength of different religions in sustaining the search for peace"

Translated: ' peace at any cost, especially through bringing all the religions together into one huge amorphous blob world peace religion that denies Christ, and I am doing everything in my power to help achieve this.'

[battousai]

No its called being smart, and not getting a lot of people already sufferring under muslim oppressors even more in trouble. These people don't have the US military to back them up.

People like the 3 million christians killed in Sudan.

Again I site WWII, that is how the pope did it then and thats how the current pope is working now. If he had spoken outright against hitler all that would have happened is the vatican would have been taken over by the Germans or Italians and the 800,000 Jews who found refuge there would have been killed?

So was that appeasment of the Nazis? I call it common sense.

The pope does not have a millitary to back him up if he were to make threats or take sides, this is the only way he can fight.

[laz17]

Let me tell you one thing, as bluntly as possible, so be sure to close your eyes if the truth is too hard for you to accept and if the truth scandalizes you:

The Pope may have represented Christ at one time, but at this moment in history, George W. Bush is more a man of God than is the Pope.

The Pope is deaf to God's voice and does not hear Him, while President Bush is most definitely being guided by God. This assertion will scandalize all who lack the eyes to see and the ears to hear, and it will cause absolute apoplexy in the godless Leftists who detest Bush because he prays to God, but it is the truth. Take it or leave it, it is up to you.

The Pope is old, feeble, and has lost his way, his decline helped along by the liberal and communist wolves in sheep's clothing around him who present him to the world as a figurehead while they gleefully work to dismantle the Church.

[laz17]

How misguided you are, that you obviously think I am something which both God and I know that I am not. Misguided and blind. Are you going to come out and claim that I am a leftist Catholic-basher who was not offended by O'Connor's words? Look here and see an example of what I believe, and then be ashamed:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/860196/posts

Pray that the Holy Spirit opens your eyes, fool.

[battousai]

Please enlighten me as to how the pope has lost his way?

Also explain to me when exactly God told you the pope can no longer hear him? I guess you must be even more a man of god than GWB, since you have such intimate details as to who can hear him and who cannot.

So the pope who has not given in on abortion, homsexuality, birth control, women priests, married priests, and deafeating communisim has lost his way because he states peace is better than war?

The Pope is old and feeble - now you are parroting the leftist media who take great pleasure in pointing this out to undermine what he says. His body might be old and feeble but hsi mind is as sharp as ever.

[It's me]

Like I said in the "other" post: I really think that this article has taken the Holy Father's words out of context. (No surprise there)

[laz17]

Don't waste your time debating with Notwithstanding. He and his ilk truly believe that they worship God, but they are worshipping an illusion, a god they have created in their own image. Their hearts are so hard and the scales on their eyes so heavy that they cannot distinguish between a true man of the Gospel and a pretender. They have fallen victim to one of Satan's sneakiest tricks -- to disguise his agents as men of God. Those whose faith is weak listen to these worthless shepherds and believe them, even as those worthless shepherds lead them astray. And should a true believer recognize the worthless shepherd for what he is, and criticize him, the weak in faith condemn the true believer as being a Catholic-basher. The weak in faith are those who cry, "Lord, Lord", and to whom Christ shall say, "I knew ye not."

[laz17]

I'm not even going to bother replying to you, because if you truly think I'm a leftist, you are so unable to see that no one can possibly straighten you out. You'd better go to the link I posted above and read it, and then come back here and see if you can still make thinly veiled accusations that I'm a leftist. Hinting that I am a leftist is like hinting that Hillary Clinton is a fundemanentaliust Christian. I suspect it is YOU who is a leftist, disguising himself as a conservative in order to create confusion.

[laz17]

fundemanentaliust=fundamentalist

[battousai]

I am not saying you are a leftist, merely that in your haste to bash the pope you are adopting leftist stratergies.

However I will read the link above in any case.

And you still have not explained how the pope is not a man of God? As far as I can see he is still standing for God's truth while so many other churches take the easy way out and do what is popular.

As for me, I am as far from being a lefty as you can get, but believe what you will.